Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Some FIR's are quite large... How long do you often spend in the Melbourne and Oakland Oceanic FIRs?

On a flight from Dubai to Melbourne, you'll enter the Melbourne FIR just past Male...so about 70% of the entire flight. Some more northerly routes are used in the other direction, so, on them you drop out of the FIR not far after crossing the WA coast, and will have Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India to deal with.

On the way across the Pacific, once you leave the Fiji area, you deal with Oakland. Sometimes a southerly route might include Tahiti, or NZ, but normally it's San Francisco (the call sign Oakland use), for most of the trip.
 
Hi JB,

This might seem like an oddly specific question, but on the 747's, when adjusting the flaps do you pull the lever out to one side to allow selection or do you pull the lever upwards to allow selection? Also again on the 744, when raising or lowering gear, am I right in thinking you need to pull the lever out towards you before you can move it up / down?

Thanks
 
This might seem like an oddly specific question, but on the 747's, when adjusting the flaps do you pull the lever out to one side to allow selection or do you pull the lever upwards to allow selection? Also again on the 744, when raising or lowering gear, am I right in thinking you need to pull the lever out towards you before you can move it up / down?

The flap level has to be lifted slightly as it drops into detents at each flap setting. There are also gates at the 1 and 20 positions, that the detent knob has to pass through.

I think the gear lever had to be pulled out before it would move vertically.
 
Can't believe how long it has been between posts. Even Mrs Dmac commented on the fact that I havn't informed her on the latest "Ask the Pilot" thread.
So pilots: when on the ground and turning the aircraft, why does the rudder (I think that is what it is) on the tail move? Also what purpose does it play whilst in the air?
 
So pilots: when on the ground and turning the aircraft, why does the rudder (I think that is what it is) on the tail move? Also what purpose does it play whilst in the air?

Ah, the joys of flight controls. The elevator controls pitch. The ailerons control roll. And the rudder controls yaw. Other controls come into it as well (just to complicate the issue). Spoilers also control roll. The flying tail of most airliners is there for trim, but any movement also results in pitch. And then things get a bit more complex, as controls also tend to have secondary effects. A rudder input will cause yaw, but will also cause roll in the same direction. An aileron input will cause some yaw, but this time in the adverse (i.e. wrong) direction. Spoilers will also cause some yaw, but in the correct direction.

Whilst yaw is how you drive your car around, it is not how you steer an aircraft. Yaw is felt as a quite uncomfortable lateral motion. We want to fly the aircraft so that it is 'in balance'...so that it is pointed straight into the air flow. A turn involves banking, which has the effect of pointing the lift vector (remember that from high school) into the turn. The components of the lift vector will then break down into a part pointing into the turn, and a component in the vertical (which is the bit that keeps you flying). As you enter the bank, slightly more total lift is required (so that the vertical component remains equal to the aircraft weight for a level turn), which means you need a little nose up pitch and a little more power. At this point I haven't mentioned the rudder at all, because only a tiny input is needed in any turn, and in most airliners this is done automatically by a yaw damper system. Even without a yaw damper, you can pretty much treat the rudders as foot rests for 99% of the time.

But...on the ground, we don't have the ability to bank the aircraft. So, when taking off or landing, the steering is accomplished by a mix of nose gear steering and rudder. Generally the rudder will have enough airflow over it to have more steering power than the nose gear at speeds above about 70 knots. We don't change from using one system to another though. The two are interlinked through the rudder pedals, so that on the ground, full rudder deflection results in about 7º of nose gear steering displacement. The steering tiller (which we don't use on the runway) will give about 70º of n/g displacement. The upshot is that you'll often see very large rudder displacements near the start of a take off roll, simply because the rudder is ineffective, and the interconnect gives limited nose gear steering...so a fairly mild 3.5º n/g steering input would also result in half rudder deflection.

Crosswinds...taking off in a crosswind can require large amounts of rudder, as the aircraft will want to weather cough into the wind...whereas we'd rather have it stay on the runway. Landing in a crosswind, the rudder is used during/after the flare to point the aircraft down the runway, and out of the airflow.

Engine failure....will leave you with a large amount of thrust on one side of the aircraft, and a lot less, or none, on the other. That unbalanced thrust will try to yaw the aircraft, and it has to be countered by the rudder. Most airliners will have sufficient rudder authority to counter that thrust on the ground from a speed of around 120 knots...known as Vmcg (minimum control ground). Airborne that speed is slightly lower because a small amount of bank can also be used. With two engines out on the same side, the 380 has sufficient rudder authority to counter full power down to 144 knots. An engine failure at just over V1 (and continue) in the sim, would require pretty well full deflection. After you'd flown away, cleaned up and accelerated, that would reduce to about ¼ deflection...but it will have to be adjusted for every speed and power change....
 
Last edited:
Great post JB747. I had not understood yaw until I read this. Thanks again for your contribution. Is there any flying condition where banking is not going to work for you and you need to use yaw? Aside, that is, from the correctional use you have described.
 
Is there any flying condition where banking is not going to work for you and you need to use yaw? Aside, that is, from the correctional use you have described.

Other than correcting for crosswinds in the flare, you never want to be turning an aircraft in flight with yaw...but, if you want to consider aerobatic aircraft, then the rudder is used all the time to help point the nose where it's wanted.

Added: This really just applies to airliners...propellor driven aircraft bring up a whole bunch of other issues.
 
Last edited:
Other than correcting for crosswinds in the flare, you never want to be turning an aircraft in flight with yaw...but, if you want to consider aerobatic aircraft, then the rudder is used all the time to help point the nose where it's wanted.
The other exception to large rudder usage than aerobatic aircraft is that many vintage aircraft have very good rudder control and poor aileron control.
A good example of this is the Tiger Moth where to instigate a turn you actually lead with rudder and follow up with aileron.
Instead of roll being a secondary effect of rudder it verges on being a primary effect.
On the Tiger Moth the aileron is only on one set of wings (I think the bottom) which complicates the issue and reduces their effectiveness.
 
[video=youtube;rEf35NtlBLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEf35NtlBLg&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

I'm not sure if this is a question or not, but I thought that the pilots in this position managed the process very well.

It looks like there was either a film crew in the coughpit and they were very lucky, or that there were mounted cameras in the coughpit. I was impressed with the attitude that the pilots took in dealing with the issue. Very re-assuring. I suppose to keep this OT, I should ask a question, so here it is. Was the pilots management of the situation satisfactory.
 
I was impressed with the attitude that the pilots took in dealing with the issue. Very re-assuring. I suppose to keep this OT, I should ask a question, so here it is. Was the pilots management of the situation satisfactory.

It's difficult to say really, given that they spend much of the time speaking in another language. Presumably the radio conversation is with their maintenance people.

If I have to be critical, then I'd suggest that once the Captain told the first officer that she was flying the aircraft (meaning that he's going to do the procedure), then she should have kept out of it, in particular not pulling out a tablet or manual. You can see at times that they are both head down.

Beyond that though, it's a simple shutdown. It should be slow and methodical. No reason whatsoever to hurry.
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

JB in these situations how do you decide whether you take the role of pilot flying or troubleshooter? Is there a procedure or is it purely up to the aptain to decide based on circumstances? Thanks.
 
It's such a shame, from an environmental point of view, that they had to dump 53 tonnes of fuel. What are the factors (in this particular case where it is one engine shut down out of four rather than multiple issues) in deciding to dump the fuel as opposed to landing heavy?
 
JB in these situations how do you decide whether you take the role of pilot flying or troubleshooter? Is there a procedure or is it purely up to the aptain to decide based on circumstances? Thanks.

It's up to the Captain. It will normally start based upon whoever happens to by doing the flying at the time, but the Captain can decide to change the roles at any time he feels the need. There isn't a fixed rule, nor should there be. Over my career I've preferred to do the procedure myself, as it gives me a better overall picture, but that could be varied depending upon the experience of the other pilot, the severity of the problem, and the proximity of the ground....lots of things really.
 
It's such a shame, from an environmental point of view, that they had to dump 53 tonnes of fuel. What are the factors (in this particular case where it is one engine shut down out of four rather than multiple issues) in deciding to dump the fuel as opposed to landing heavy?

Let's start by saying that an environmental concern is never going to outweigh the safety of my passengers or the aircraft in an emergency.

Secondly, I'd expect that there is less environmental damage from dumping some fuel compared to burning it. I guess we'd need a chemist to really answer that though.

Landing heavy...Well heavy landings are always bad. What you mean is an 'overweight' landing. The consequences can be severe. Tyres bursting, brake fires, excursions off the end of the runway, structural damage on landing. You need to consider the go around path, and performance. Of course this is a graduated scale...at just above the max, it really isn't much different to a normal landing, but at well above the nasties all become more likely.

On QF30, the only reason I stopped dumping was that I ran out of time...
 
...

What you mean is an 'overweight' landing. The consequences can be severe. Tyres bursting, brake fires, excursions off the end of the runway, structural damage on landing. You need to consider the go around path, and performance. Of course this is a graduated scale...at just above the max, it really isn't much different to a normal landing, but at well above the nasties all become more likely.

Thanks.

Yes I meant 'overweight'.

For some reason I imagined a landing in good conditions with just one engine out, hadn't thought about the 'go-round' issue which I guess would be a factor with one engine down and the extra weight.
 
Thanks.

Yes I meant 'overweight'.

For some reason I imagined a landing in good conditions with just one engine out, hadn't thought about the 'go-round' issue which I guess would be a factor with one engine down and the extra weight.

Most overweight landings are done will all engines operating, and even then are not at anywhere near max take off weight, but at the weight that results at the end of the fuel dump. So, in an A380, I could take off at up to 569 tonnes, and whilst it is possible to turn around and immediately land, there will be brake and tyre issues. But, if I dump all the fuel that I can, I'll end up at about 440 tonnes...still a good 50 tonnes above max landing weight, but a weight that is unlikely to give any issues if handled correctly, and a weight at which much of the sim practice occurs.

If your aircraft has become a 3 engined aircraft, there are 'go around climb' issues that you will have to resolve. For instance in Hong Kong, with very high terrain to the north of the field, you would need to consider whether you would have enough performance to carry out the normal go around. A 3 engined approach at normal weights will still allow the normal g/a tracks, but at higher weights you'd end up with terrain clearance issues.

Something else to consider, is the why. Why has the engine shut down? There are a number of scenarios which would throw doubt on the other engines too, so a thought about what happens if another goes is well worthwhile. If I've just seen a flock of birds go past the right hand side, and #3 has died...I'd wonder about #4. So, it would be a good idea not to lock yourself into any situations that you couldn't fix with only two remaining.
 
It's such a shame, from an environmental point of view, that they had to dump 53 tonnes of fuel. What are the factors (in this particular case where it is one engine shut down out of four rather than multiple issues) in deciding to dump the fuel as opposed to landing heavy?

The fuel evaporates. What factors influence dumping fuel in this case ? You saw they followed standard operating procedures and there were no other issues in play. In short they were minimising potential damage to the aircraft and following safe accepted operating requirements.


An airline is a business after all and no different to any other business in the sense revenues need to exceed costs. Catastrophic events can cease its ability to operate. I believe the airline in question went through a period of inoperability following an event.
 
Do you see birds flying near your aircraft often?

When do you find out your roster for early-mid November? :)
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Back
Top